DADIN A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF DADIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 37091/15 and 5 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 January 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Dadin and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
Mateja Đurović,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The applicants were represented by Mr Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko, a lawyer practising in Moscow.

3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicants complained of the disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. JURISDICTION

7. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

3. LOCUS STANDI of Mr Dadin’s heir

8. Following the death of the applicant, Mr Dadin, his widow, Mrs Oleksandra Oleksandrivna Sveshnikova, expressed her wish to pursue the applications on behalf of the deceased applicant (see the appended table).

9. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs or close relatives may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references). In the present case, the applicant’s widow submitted documents confirming that she was the applicant’s heir. In these circumstances, the Court considers that Mrs Sveshnikova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in place of her late husband.

10. In the light of the above, the Court accepts that Mrs Sveshnikova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in place of her deceased husband. It will therefore continue to deal with the case at her request. For convenience, however, it will continue to refer to Mr Dadin as the applicant in the present judgment.

4. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION

11. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as organisers or participants of public assemblies, namely their arrest in relation to the dispersal of these assemblies and their conviction for administrative offences. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 11 of the Convention.

12. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, ECHR 2015, with further references) and proportionality of interference with it (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, ECHR 2006‑XIV, and Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova, no. 33482/06, 31 March 2009).

13. In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

14. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”.

15. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.

5. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

16. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.

17. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that these complaints also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 114-42, 9 April 2019, as regards the conditions of transport of detainees; and Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 103-140, 24 July 2014, relating to ill-treatment of detainees.

6. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

18. The applicants raised further additional complaints under various Convention provisions, concerning other aspects of their detention and fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings. In view of the findings in paragraphs 15 and 17 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with these remaining complaints.

7. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see in particular Navalnyy and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 25809/17 and 14 others, § 22, 4 October 2022), as well as taking into account other awards made by the Court to these applicants in previous cases (see, for instance, Fayzullin and Others v Russia [Committee], nos. 48841/14 and 13 others, 12 September 2024, Galperin and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 38377/15 and 9 others, 12 September 2024, Zmyrev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 69927/17 and 12 others, 12 September 2024; Varzhabetyan and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 60851/12 and 15 others, 5 October 2023; and Zakharova and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 43102/15 and 24 others, 4 July 2024), the Court finds it reasonable to award 10,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Dadin to be paid to his widow Mrs Sveshnikova, and further considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the remaining applicants.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Holds that Mrs Sveshnikova, the widow of the applicant, Mr Dadin, has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in place of her late husband;
4. Declares the complaints under Article 11 of the Convention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants;
5. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
7. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant Mr Dadin, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), to be paid directly to his widow Mrs Sveshnikova, within three months, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the remaining applicants.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention

(disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies)